Attorney General and Another vs Teofilo Kisanji University (Civil Case No. 118 of 2026) [2026] TZHC 2968 (4 June 2026)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA MBEYA SUB-REGISTRY ATMBEYA CIVIL CASE NO. 118 OF 2026 CASE REFERENCE No. 202601031000000118 BETWEEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. ........................................................ 1 5 T PLAINTIFF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY FUND .. ........................................ 2No PLAINTIFF VERSUS TEOFILO KISANJI UNIVERSITY ........ ...... .... .. .. .. ........... .. .. . .. ....... DEFENDANT JUDGMENT 29 th April & 4 th June 2026 TIGANGA, J.: This is an ex parte judgment originating from a summary suit instituted under the provisions of Order XXXV of the Civil Procedure Code Act, Cap. 33 R.E. 2023, read together with section 79(2) of the National Social Security Fund Act, Cap. 50 R. E. 2018. In this case, the first Plaintiff is the Hon. Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania, suing as the necessary party as principal legal adviser to the Government. The second Plaintiff is the Page 1 of 9

Board of Trustees of the National Social Security Fund, a statutory body corporate established under section 55 of the National Social Security Fund Act with the mandate, inter alia, of administering compulsory social security contributions and safeguarding members' statutory entitlements under the scheme. The defendant is a higher learning institution established to render higher learning education; for that matter, he is an employer of the lecturer and other staff. In this case, the Plaintiffs seek recovery of outstanding statutory social security contributions together with accrued statutory penalties allegedly due and payable by the Defendant to the second Plaintiff. According to the pleadings, the Defendant is a registered contributing employer under the statutory scheme administered by the second Plaintiff and was assigned Employer Registration Number 282936. By virtue of such registration and operation of law, the Defendant assumed a continuing statutory obligation to remit monthly social security contributions comprising both employers' and employees' shares at the statutorily prescribed rate. The plaintiff avers that, notwithstanding the aforesaid statutory obligation, the Defendant persistently failed, neglected, and/or defaulted to remit members' contributions for various periods spanning between March, Page 2 of9

2019 and September 2020, as well as between January, 2024 and March, 2025. As a consequence thereof, the Defendant allegedly accumulated outstanding principal contributions amounting to TZS 678,021,987.40 together with accrued statutory penalties amounting to TZS 322,413,778/= thereby resulting in an aggregate indebtedness of TZS 1,000,435,765.4/=. It is further pleaded that several demands and reminders were issued requiring the Defendant to regularize the outstanding statutory obligations, but the Defendant failed and/or refused to comply. In substantiation of the claim, the Plaintiffs annexed documentary exhibits comprising registration particulars as Annexure NSSF - 1, inspection reports, exchequer receipts, schedules of arrears and accrued penalties, exit meeting reports as Annexure NSSF-2, together with demand notices as Annexure-3. When the matter was called on for hearing, learned State Attorney, Ms. Edina Mwamlima, appeared for the Plaintiffs and moved this Court to enter judgment under summary procedure. Learned counsel informed the Court that the Defendant had been duly served with summons to appear together with copies of the plaint and accompanying court process on 02 nd March 2026. Counsel further submitted that despite lawful service, the Defendant Page 3 of9

neither entered an appearance nor filed an application seeking leave to defend the suit as mandatorily required under Order XXXV Rule 2(2)(a) of the Civil Procedure Code Act, Cap. 33 R.E. 2023. It was the submission of learned counsel that the Defendant's omission to seek leave to defend within the prescribed statutory period rendered the Plaintiffs' claim legally uncontested and deemed admitted in law. Counsel therefore urged the Court to enter judgment as prayed in the plaint together with interest and costs. I have accorded anxious consideration to the pleadings, annexures appended thereto, the submissions advanced by the learned State Attorney, as well as the applicable law governing summary proceedings. At the threshold, this Court considers it imperative to first satisfy itself as to whether the Defendant was duly served with judicial process. Upon meticulous scrutiny of the summons in summary suit together with the entire record of proceedings, I am fully satisfied that the Defendant was duly, effectively, and lawfully served with summons to appear, accompanied by copies of the plaint and all requisite court documents on 02 nd March 2026. The summons of summary suit on record sufficiently demonstrates Page 4 of 9

compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements governing service of summons under sections 29 and 30 , together with Order XXXV Rule 29 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code Act. Notwithstanding such lawful service, the Defendant elected neither to enter an appearance nor to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by filing an application for leave to defend the suit. No explanation whatsoever has been tendered before this Court accounting for such omission. T he present proceedings were instituted under the special summary procedure contemplated under Order XXXV of the Civil Procedure Code Act. The jurisprudential object underlying summary procedure is to facilitate expeditious disposal of claims founded upon liquidated demands where the defendant lacks a bona fide defense warranting adjudication through a plenary trial. The procedure is specifically intended to prevent abuse of judicial process by defendants whose participation serves merely to delay realization of lawful claims. The legal position governing summary suits is no longer res integra. Under Order XXXV Rule 2(2)(a) of the Civil Procedure Code, a defendant served with summons in a summary suit is disentitled from defending the Page 5 of9

action as of right unless leave to appear and defend is first sought and obtained from the Court upon disclosure of a bona fide defense raising triab le issues. In M/s Roko Investment Co. Ltd vs Tanzania Electric Supply Co. Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 327 of 2019 [2022] TZCA 693, the Court of Appeal emphatically reiterated that the requirement for obtaining leave to defend under summary procedure is mandatory and failure to comply therewith entitles the plaintiff to judgment forthwith. Similarly, in Board of Trustees of the Public Service Social Security Fund vs Tanzania Mines Energy & Construction Workers Union (TAMICO) (Civil Case 197 of 2021) [2022] TZHC 11026 (15 July 2022), the High Court reiterated that where a defendant, despite proper service, fails to apply for leave to defend a summary suit, the plaintiff becomes entitled to judgment upon establishing the debt claimed through credible documentary evidence. The same principle was reaffirmed in The Hon. Attorney General and Another vs Jonas John Ihashe t/a Masai Utalii Company Limited (Civil Case No . 30136 of 2024) [2025] TZHC 6856 (12 November 2025), where the Court held that proof of service coupled with failure by the defendant to seek leave to defend Page 6 of 9

renders the plaintiff's claim substantially admitted for purposes of Order XX.XV proceedings. Applying the foregoing principles to the matter before me, it is manifest that the Defendant, despite having been accorded full opportunity to controvert the Plaintiffs' claim, consciously elected not to participate in these proceedings. No application for leave to defend was filed, and no material whatsoever has been placed before this Court disclosing the existence of any bona fide triable issue deserving ventilation through a full trial. Moreover, the documentary evidence annexed to the plaint unequivocally establishes the existence of the statutory indebtedness claimed by the Plaintiffs. The registration particulars confirm the Defendant's status as a contributing employer under the statutory scheme administered by the second Plaintiff. The inspection reports, schedules of arrears, exchequer receipts, accrued penalties, and demand notices collectively demonstrate persistent default by the Defendant in discharging its statutory obligations under the National Social Security Fund Act. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that statutory social security contributions do not constitute ordinary commercial debts. They are Page 7 of9

protected statutory entitlements intended to secure employees against contingencies contemplated under the law, including retirement, invalidity, and survivorship. Failure by an employer to remit such contributions therefore transcends mere contractual default; it constitutes breach of statutory duty with direct prejudice to employees' accrued social security rights safeguarded by law. In the absence of any rebuttal, traverse, or defense from the Defendant, the Plaintiffs, evidence remains wholly uncontroverted and legally unassailed. I therefore find and hold that the Plaintiffs have successfully discharged the requisite burden of proof on a balance of probabilities and are consequently entitled to the reliefs sought in the plaint. Accordingly, judgment is hereby entered ex parte in favor of the Plaintiffs against the Defendant in the following terms:

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiffs the sum of TZS 1,000,435,765.4/= being outstanding statutory social security contributions together with accrued penalties thereon.
2. The Defendant shall pay interest on the decretal sum at the court rate of 7% per annum from the date of this judgment until full and final Page 8 of9

satisfaction of the decree pursuant to section 35 of the Civil Procedure Code Act, Cap. 33 R.E. 2023. 3. The Defendant shall bear the costs of this suit pursuant to section 36 of the Civil Procedure Code Act, Cap. 33 R.E. 2023. It is accordingly ordered. DATED and delivered at MBEYA on 4 th day of June 2026. J. C. TIGANGA JUDGE Right of Appeal explained and guaranteed. ~ J.C. TIGANGA JUDGE Page 9 of9